Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4821 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 4282 of 2011)
ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT
VERSUS
MEGH SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant- Aligarh Development Authority took steps
for acquisition of land belonging to the respondent No.1 as per
Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (For short `1894 Act') on 09.08.2004. Simultaneously
emergency clause was also invoked under the provisions of Section
17 followed by Section 6 declaration dated 03.08.2005. According
to the appellant possession of the land was taken and part of
the compensation was deposited with the Special Land Acquisition
JUDGMENT
Officer.
3. The respondent No.1 challenged the acquisition on various
grounds and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by the
impugned Judgment dated 21.10.2010 allowed the writ petition and
quashed the Notification dated 09.08.2004 and the declaration
dated 03.08.2005. Among other reasons, the main reason for
taking such a view is that after invoking emergency clause, no
award was passed even after the expiry of four years. Thus
Page 1
aggrieved, the Requisitioning Authority -Aligarh Development
Authority is before this Court. When the matter was pending
before this Court, the land owner non-applicant filed
I.A.No.3/2015 contending that respondent No.1 is entitled to a
declaration that acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of
the operation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (For short `2013 Act'), since neither compensation has
been paid to the owner nor possession has been taken by the Land
Acquisition Collector.
4. The appellant-Authority has filed reply to the affidavit
stating that the compensation has been deposited with the Land
Acquisition Collector. As far as the possession is concerned, it
is stated in the affidavit that the land has already been taken
in possession and a `full-fledged and complete residential colony
has been developed'.
5. It is however an admitted position that no Award either
JUDGMENT
under the 1894 Act or under the 2013 Act has been passed in
respect of the land of respondent No.1. Section 24 of the 2013
Act reads as follows:
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 (1 of 1894),-
a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
Act relating to the determination of compensation shall
Page 2
apply; or
b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the
said Land Acquisition Act , as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (1 of 1894),, where an award
under the said section 11 has been made five years or more
prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the
compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall
be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if
it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land
acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of
this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation
in respect of a majority of land holding has not been
deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act , shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.”
6. Section 24 of the 2013 Act envisages mainly two
situations; i) where the land acquisition proceedings had
already been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award was
passed till the date the new Act came into force. (ii) where the
Award has been passed but neither the owner has been
dispossessed nor has he been paid the compensation. Under the
JUDGMENT
first, where the award had not been passed, the acquisition
proceedings could continue; but the compensation will have to be
determined under the scheme of 2013 Act. Under the second
category, there is a statutory lapse of the proceedings. There
is also an incidental third situation, where award under the
1894 Act had already been passed prior to coming into force of
the 2013 Act, but payment is yet to be made and possession is
yet to be taken. In that case, the further proceedings after
Page 3
the award could continue under the old Act of 1894; but if
either payment or possession has not taken effect in five years
prior to the 2013 Act, then proceedings will lapse.
7. In the case before us, since admittedly the award has not
been passed, there arises no question of lapse. The land
acquisition proceedings would continue but with the rider that
the award will have to be passed and compensation determined
under the provisions of 2013 Act.
8. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go
into various other aspects. Having regard to the factual matrix
of the residential colony having been set up, which fact is not
controverted also, it cannot be said that there was an urgency
for the acquisition. Therefore, the approach made by the High
Court is not correct. However, the stand of the Authority that
it had deposited 80% of the compensation with the land
acquisition officers and hence it was for the owner to collect
the money, cannot be appreciated. That is a matter between the
JUDGMENT
Requisitioning Authority and the Acquisitioning Authority.
There is no question of `come and get' the compensation while
compulsorily acquiring the land; the approach required under law
is `go and give'. In this case, no award has been passed and
the land value has not been given to the owner. The impugned
order is hence set aside. The appellant and the Acquisitioning
Authority are directed to complete the acquisition proceedings
by passing an award under the provisions of the 2013 Act. This
shall be done within a period of six months and needless also to
Page 4
say that the entire compensation due to respondent No.1 would be
calculated in terms of the 2013 Act and the same shall either be
deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector or disbursed to
the respondent No.1 within one month thereafter.
9. The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.
................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 05, 2016
JUDGMENT
Page 5